Stealing a Crown Jewel

Unlike contemporary banks, usually some sort of “MegaCorp”, important banks of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were often privately owned and based on the fortunes of their principals. As a consequence the loans they made were not matters of public policy; and they could remain quite secretive about their business, unless their probity came into question. One such banking firm was that of “Hope & Company; though founded in Amsterdam in 1726, the kaleidoscopic politics engendered by the French Revolution had led the firm to move its “home office” to London before 1800. The move didn’t harm it. In fact, its prominence was such that when, in 1803, the United States purchased Louisiana from France, both nations agreed that it was the bank to handle the financial particulars of the deal. By 1812, however, Hope & Company was in trouble; troubled enough for Henry Philip Hope, the firm’s principal owner to start looking for a buyer. 

Ultimately, a deal was made to sell Hope’s bank to Barings Bank (Established in London in 1763, bankrupted by a rogue trader in 1995), and Hope’s money problems were over. By curious coincidence, however, in the midst of Hope’s money problems, and only two days after the French statute of limitations put crimes committed in 1792 beyond the reach of the law, London Jeweler John Francillon wrote a “laboratory report” on a 45.5 carat blue diamond that was clearly the Hope. The gem’s owner was unnamed, so the name on the report was that of London diamond merchant Daniel Eliason, recognized as a middleman. Significantly, Eliason never explained his client’s motive for making the diamond a matter of public record. No sale of the diamond appears to have transpired thereafter; so the Hope disappeared from view until H. P. Hope’s death in 1839. Then, in the settlement of his estate, it passed into the hands of one of his nephews; and it has remained, more or less, “on public view” ever since.

Little was made of the diamond’s origin, however, until it was given to the Smithsonian. There it was subjected not only to the gazes of the public but to the scientific scrutiny of the museum’s staff and diamond professionals; and a question began to nag at them. “Was it a recut of the French Blue, stolen from the ‘Royal Storehouse’ in 1792?” Dogged by conflicting historic data, the question went unanswered for decades until a startling find was made in 2007 at Paris’ Natural History museum. It is a cast lead model, the shape and dimensions of which led the Gemological Institute of America’s scientists to believe it to have been cast from the French Blue.  Using a combination of computer modeling and their own hard won diamond lore, they established that the Hope would fit within the contours of their putative French Blue.  As the French Blue has never been recovered, nor has there ever been any report of a blue diamond larger, they were led to the conclusion that the Hope is almost surely a recut of the French Blue. This, of course leads to the questions of when and why it had been recut; and the lead model provides us with some interesting clues.

In the 1850s the cast had been donated to the Museum by the Archard Family, prominent Parisian jewelers in the first half of the nineteenth century. Though the first Archard would have been a mere apprentice in 1792, when the French Blue was stolen, we know that by 1817 Mr. Archard counted Henry Philip Hope among his clients.  All else is conjecture.  Had the blue diamond brought them together? If so, when? The date of Francillon’s report makes it clear that the diamond had been recut before it was submitted to him in 1812.  If Archard had made the cast of the French Blue, is it possible that he had been involved in the original theft? It is self evident that the recut was intended to hide the gem’s origin; but why, in the words of master diamond cutter Maarten de Witte, was it “a real hack job? Was the poor quality of the recut the result of amateurism on the part of the thieves or was it the result of Hope’s haste in readying the gem for a possible sale? If it was Hope’s haste, was he fearful that the French statute of limitations didn’t apply to the stolen French Blue, or was he afraid that the window of opportunity offered by the amnesty might soon be closed? In any event, what role was played by Daniel Eliason, who was not only a gem dealer but Hope’s diamond purchasing agent as well? Had he obtained the diamond for Hope and if so, what role, if any, was played by Archard? However the questions may be asked, the most likely answers always come back to Hope.  A wealthy and reclusive diamond collector, at the time he was one of the few men in Europe who could have, and might have, bought the stolen French Blue; and Archard’s cast makes Hope’s responsibility for the recut a real possibility

Diamonds are romantic. They say, “I love you” when given as gifts and “I made it” when purchased to mark one of life’s important milestones; so why not say it perfectly with one of our hand selected gems?  We know and love diamonds so  any gem you purchase from us will be the beauty you deserve.  Check out our  jewelry collection on line at hurstsberwynjewelers.com; then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment to select the very best diamonds for you. We’re Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers, not the ordinary jeweler.

The Kindest Cut - A Diamond Commentary

Long ago, but not far away, I was compelled to read William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”.  Naturally, at least in that time, I was equally compelled to memorize at least a bit of Marc Antony’s funeral oration wherein he called Brutus to account for his part in Caesar’s assassination.  It was, he said, “the most unkindest cut of all,”  a matter of opinion in ancient Rome.   In like manner, but with little or no bloodshed, there is a considerable range of opinion among diamond cutters over what constitutes a ‘kind’ or ‘natural’ diamond cut.  We cut diamonds to beautify them; but because of their value there are real limits on the amount of weight a cutter is willing to sacrifice in pursuit of beauty.  That is, is a kind cut one that saves the greatest weight from the rough gem or is the kindest cut one that makes the most of a diamond’s ability to transform light into “fire?”   There are no easy answers, of course; and several years ago Gabi Tolkowski, often thought to be the greatest living diamond cutter, commented on this in a lecture he presented.   The subject was the ‘Golden Jubilee Diamond’.   

The rough diamond that would become the Golden Jubilee (now part of the Thai crown jewels) was discovered in 1985 at South Africa’s Premier mine.  It’s weight, more than 755 carats, made it remarkable; but its brown color and the deep cracks within it left the management of DeBeers, owner of the mine, unsure what to do with it.  So they called Gabi, asked him to come look at it and make his recommendations.  He studied it for a few days, made his report and went home.  A few months later he was surprised by another call from DeBeers; the firm wanted him to cut the diamond.  His lecture proceeded from this point with a discussion of the difficulties he and the team he assembled faced in the two years it took to complete the job.  New diamond cutting tools were developed and used, they had DeBeers construct a seismically isolated underground room for them to work in and more.  Needless to say, it was quite a job, the end result being a ‘fire rose cushion cut‘ gem of some 546 carats, the largest cut diamond in the world.  At the conclusion of his lecture Mr. Tolkowski threw the room open for questions.  Several were asked; but finally one of the attendees asked the crucial ‘cut’ question.  ‘Wouldn’t the diamond have been more brilliant if you had cut it into a round brilliant cut?”  “Oh yes,” the polished Belgian replied, “but we would have lost so much of it’s magnificent weight.”  So there it was, in dealing with that phenomenon of nature Gabi had valued weight over absolute brilliance; but it had not been an easy decision and somewhere in the contentious world of virtuoso diamond cutters I’m sure disagreement with his decision can still be found.  Certainly a recent controversy over a diamond re-cut bears that out.

In this instance the diamond was not a new find, it was one of history’s notable gems, the Wittlesbach, formerly part of the Bavarian crown jewels.  It seems to have been Indian in origin and first appeared in Europe as a Habsburg family possession.  Marriage brought it into the ruling family of Bavaria, the Wittelsbachs, and there it remained for the next two centuries.  Time, however, was not kind to the Wittelsbachs and in 1951, needing cash, it was sold.  It’s new owner, in search of greater beauty from the blue-gray gem, asked Joseph Komkommer to re-cut it.  Caught in the diamond’s history, however, he refused. and instead organized a consortium to buy it.  It was then resold and disappeared into private hands until 2008 when it was again offered for sale.  Billionaire London jeweler Laurence Graff bought it and announced that he would have it recut to enhance its color and get rid of both some damage to the gem and some internal ‘flaws’.  At this announcement the cutting world erupted into controversy.   Gabi Tolkowski called it "the end of culture;" while the director of Berlin’s German History Museum equated it to defacing a Rembrandt.  Others, of course, took the opposite position.  Prominent Illinois born master diamond cutter Maarten de Witte (who once offered to re-cut the Hope diamond) opined that the diamond’s history remained with it regardless of the re-cut and that recutting it to enhance its beauty was certainly justifiable.  Ignoring the controversy, Graff had it recut; and the diamond, now named the ‘Wittlesbach-Graff’ is indeed more beautiful (a ‘Fancy Deep Blue’ color), more ‘sparkly’ and ‘Internally Flawless’ - but it has lost more than 4 carats of ‘its magnificent weight’ in the process.  And I’m sure that all of today’s virtuoso diamond cutters will continue to hold their opinions as to whether or not the cut was ‘kind’.

Here at Hursts’ Berwyn Jewelers we know diamonds and value beauty in them (Maarten de Witte is, after all, an old friend); so you really must come see us for that special diamond purchase.  We value you above all; so we’ll be happy to help you with your most important gifts and those rewards you’ve earned for yourself.  Check out our jewelry collection on line at hurstsberwynjewelers.com; then phone us at 708.788.0880 for an appointment.  We’re the uncommon jeweler.